Dania Lumber & Supply Co. v. Senter

• Decision Date: 22 December 1933
• Citation: Dania Lumber & Supply Co. v. Senter, 113 Fla. 332, 152 So. 2 (Fla. 1933)
• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Parties: DANIA LUMBER & SUPPLY CO. v. SENTER et al.

152 So. 2

113 Fla. 332

DANIA LUMBER & SUPPLY CO. v. SENTER et al.

Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

December 22, 1933

Rehearing Denied Jan. 15, 1934.

Error to Circuit Court, Broward County; George W. Tedder, Judge.

Action by Jack Senter and another against the Dania Lumber & Supply Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

COUNSEL Newman T. Miller, of West Palm Beach, C. E Farrington, of Fort Lauderdale, E. W. & R. C. Davis, of Orlando, and William C. Hodges and Waller & Pepper, all of Tallahassee, for plaintiff in error.

Dunbar H. Johnson, Jr., of Miami, for defendants in error.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the court that there is no error in the said judgment. It is therefore considered, ordered, and adjudged by the court that the said judgment of the circuit court be and the same is hereby, affirmed.

DAVIS C.J., WHITFIELD, TERRELL, and BUFORD, JJ., and HUTCHINSON Circuit Judge, concur.

CONCURRING

DAVIS, Chief Justice (concurring).

Section 4367, Comp. Gen. Laws, section 2700, Rev. Gen. St., gives parties to trials the right to except to any erroneous charge given by doing so for the first time in a motion for a new trial. The statute supersedes the old rule on the subject of exceptions to charges which were required to be made at the time charges were given. I concur in affirmance because I think the error in a charge given to the effect that plaintiff could recover for their 'alleged,' as distinguished from their 'proven,' damages was cured by the charge as a whole, which charge as a whole was not misleading.

On Rehearing.

PER CURIAM.

A rehearing is applied for. The action is by husband and wife to recover damages for personal injuries and loss of an automobile in a collision on a public highway. Trial was had on the first third, and fifth counts of the amended declaration. The first count is by the husband for his loss of his wife's services, company, and consortium, and for his expenses due to injuries to his wife. To this count there were pleas of not guilty, contributory negligence, and a denial of the injury as alleged. The third count is by the husband for his injuries with consequent expenses and losses, and the loss of his automobile. Pleas were the same as to the first count. The fifth count is by the wife joined by her husband to recover for her injuries. A plea of not guilty was interposed.

It appears that as the plaintiffs were going north on the east side of the highway the defendant's loaded truck was coming south on the west side of the road. Another car was parked on the west side of the road. W...